Literature DB >> 26655786

Potentiation of the startle reflex is in line with contingency reversal instructions rather than the conditioning history.

Gaëtan Mertens1, Jan De Houwer2.   

Abstract

In the context of fear conditioning, different psychophysiological measures have been related to different learning processes. Specifically, skin conductance responses (SCRs) have been related to cognitive expectancy learning, while fear potentiated startle (FPS) has been proposed to reflect affective learning that operates according to simple associative learning principles. On the basis of this two level account of fear conditioning we predicted that FPS should be less affected by verbal instructions and more affected by direct experience than SCRs. We tested this hypothesis by informing participants that contingencies would be reversed after a differential conditioning phase. Our results indicate that contingency reversal instructions led to an immediate and complete reversal of FPS regardless of the previous conditioning history. This change was accompanied by similar changes on US expectancy ratings and SCRs. These results conform with an expectancy model of fear conditioning but argue against a two level account of fear conditioning.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Affective learning; Expectancy learning; Fear conditioning; Fear potentiated startle; Instructions; Reversal learning; Skin conductance response

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26655786     DOI: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.11.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biol Psychol        ISSN: 0301-0511            Impact factor:   3.251


  10 in total

Review 1.  Pavlovian Learning Processes in Pediatric Anxiety Disorders: A Critical Review.

Authors:  Michael Treanor; Benjamin M Rosenberg; Michelle G Craske
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2020-09-12       Impact factor: 12.810

2.  Instructed knowledge shapes feedback-driven aversive learning in striatum and orbitofrontal cortex, but not the amygdala.

Authors:  Lauren Y Atlas; Bradley B Doll; Jian Li; Nathaniel D Daw; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 8.140

3.  Rapid Top-Down Control of Behavior Due to Propositional Knowledge in Human Associative Learning.

Authors:  Francisco J López; Rafael Alonso; David Luque
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Prepared stimuli enhance aversive learning without weakening the impact of verbal instructions.

Authors:  Lauren Y Atlas; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Learn Mem       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 2.460

5.  Anxious behaviour in a demonstrator affects observational learning.

Authors:  Ida Selbing; Andreas Olsson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Reversing Threat to Safety: Incongruence of Facial Emotions and Instructed Threat Modulates Conscious Perception but Not Physiological Responding.

Authors:  Florian Bublatzky; Martin Riemer; Pedro Guerra
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-09-13

7.  The mere sight of loved ones does not inhibit psychophysiological defense mechanisms when threatened.

Authors:  Florian Bublatzky; Sabine Schellhaas; Pedro Guerra
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Rating expectations can slow aversive reversal learning.

Authors:  Lauren Y Atlas; Christina F Sandman; Elizabeth A Phelps
Journal:  Psychophysiology       Date:  2021-11-27       Impact factor: 4.348

9.  Verbal instructions override the meaning of facial expressions.

Authors:  Florian Bublatzky; Pedro Guerra; Georg W Alpers
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Observational learning of fear in real time procedure.

Authors:  Michał Szczepanik; Anna M Kaźmierowska; Jarosław M Michałowski; Marek Wypych; Andreas Olsson; Ewelina Knapska
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 4.379

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.